DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herget et al. (US 2020/0338580 A1).
As to claim 1, Herget et al. discloses a method of combining items to print with a mobile robotic printing system into a single print operation, or into a smaller number of print operations than the number of items (see the abstract and see paragraph 0112, i.e., line printing pathway optimization method performs at least one optimization of a listing of lines to be printed, see the abstract; and optimization of the line drawing is performed that takes into account the constraints of the robotic system, the location of walls, existing structures, obstacles, and other considerations, see paragraph 0112), the method comprising:
identifying a set of items to be printed on a surface at specific locations (see paragraph 0057, i.e., features to be drawn may include combinations of lines, letters, numbers, and symbols. For example, in some implementations, the lines and features correspond to images to be printed by a printhead of the print system. A printhead permits printing not only lines, but letters, numbers, and symbols and first file describing the lines to be drawn, see paragraph 0057);
determining a set of fixed or temporary physical constraints of the robotic printing system (see paragraphs [0042] and [0105], i.e., optimization may, for example, take into account various constraints on the mobile robot's printing capabilities and ability to traverse a jobsite due to its own capabilities and any obstacles at the jobsite, see paragraph 0042, and in paragraph 0105, i.e., the mobile printing robot has constraints on its printing capabilities. Some of these constraints arise on the arrangement of its print heads, see paragraph 0105);
combining items that the robotic printing system is capable of printing in fewer print operations than the number of items, based on the relative position and orientation of the items as well as the physical constraints of the robotic printing system (see paragraphs [0147] and [0148], i.e., the optimization may combine two lines that can be printed more efficiently in one smooth motion. For example, two lines may be continuous and thus be more efficiently printed by combining them (e.g., a line from A to B and a line from B to C). As another example, two lines may overlap, such the may be more efficiently printed as one combined line, see paragraph 0147 and in paragraph 0148, i.e., multiple objects that fit within the width of one print swath (the width of the active printing area of the head, may be combined together and printed as one image. For example, if the robot has a print head that can print 1 inch wide, two parallel lines that are 5/8 inch wide representing either side of a drywall layer, can be printed simultaneously. In this case the two lines are combined together and printed in a single pass, or line, see paragraph 0148); and
submitting the results of the algorithm as a new set of instructions to the robotic printing system (see paragraph [0130], i.e., the user interface device optimizes the lines before submitting them to the robot).
As to claim 2, Herget et al. discloses omitting portions of the set of items to be printed that may be inferred by a viewer of the remaining content that is printed (see paragraphs [0167] and [0173], i.e., a line item is selected from the cropping list and determined whether this line needs to be shortened in one or both directions in step 822. This is done by checking whether the robot could start printing from either end point of the line without intersecting walls, pillars, stairs, cliffs, or any other obstacles based on the map. If there is one end point the robot could reach without being obstructed by obstacles, then the line is shortened from the opposite end point of the line to ensure that the robot, while printing, will not intersect any obstacles in the map. The cropped line is then added to the output list in step 810, see paragraph 0167 and the optimization would decide to crop the line until it is obstacle free in step 914, see paragraph 0173).
As to claim 3, Herget et al. discloses wherein comprising inserting a set of annotations representing visual indicators of omitted content (see paragraphs [0196], i.e., To ease the task of filling in the missing line once the obstacle has been removed, the robot also marked two arrows, and two unique identifiers "25" that were not given in the layout. These two arrows indicate to a human operator to extend the line through, and which direction the lines should be extended, see paragraph 0196).
As to claim 4, Herget et al. discloses wherein the set of annotations includes at least one member from the group consisting of arrows, symbols, labels, and geometric patterns (see paragraphs 0196, i.e., arrows).
As to claim 7, Herget et al. discloses a system controller (see figures 1, 2 and 3, and see par 0034, “controller”, and see pars 0043-0044 “controller 295”, controller 292, 294 and 296) configured to: receive information to identify items to print with a mobile robotic printing system (see paragraph [0056], i.e., General information on the lines and other features to be drawn may be obtained from the Building Information Models (BIM), CAD, or other architectural drawings, and see figures 1 and 2);
combine items to print with a mobile robotic printing system into a single print operation, or into a smaller number of print operations than the number of items (see the abstract and see paragraph 0112, i.e., line printing pathway optimization method performs at least one optimization of a listing of lines to be printed, see the abstract; and optimization of the line drawing is performed that takes into account the constraints of the robotic system, the location of walls, existing structures, obstacles, and other considerations, see paragraph 0112 and see paragraphs [0147] and [0148], i.e., the optimization may combine two lines that can be printed more efficiently in one smooth motion. For example, two lines may be continuous and thus be more efficiently printed by combining them (e.g., a line from A to B and a line from B to C). As another example, two lines may overlap, such the may be more efficiently printed as one combined line, see paragraph 0147 and in paragraph 0148, i.e., multiple objects that fit within the width of one print swath (the width of the active printing area of the head, may be combined together and printed as one image. For example, if the robot has a print head that can print 1 inch wide, two parallel lines that are 5/8 inch wide representing either side of a drywall layer, can be printed simultaneously. In this case the two lines are combined together and printed in a single pass, or line, see paragraph 0148), including:
identify a set of items to be printed on a surface at specific locations (see paragraph 0057, i.e., features to be drawn may include combinations of lines, letters, numbers, and symbols. For example, in some implementations, the lines and features correspond to images to be printed by a printhead of the print system. A printhead permits printing not only lines, but letters, numbers, and symbols and first file describing the lines to be drawn, see paragraph 0057);
determine a set of fixed or temporary physical constraints of the robotic printing system (see paragraphs [0042] and [0105], i.e., optimization may, for example, take into account various constraints on the mobile robot's printing capabilities and ability to traverse a jobsite due to its own capabilities and any obstacles at the jobsite, see paragraph 0042, and in paragraph 0105, i.e., the mobile printing robot has constraints on its printing capabilities. Some of these constraints arise on the arrangement of its print heads, see paragraph 0105);
utilize an algorithm that takes as input the set of items to be printed and the physical constraints (see paragraphs 0042 and 105, i.e., optimization may, for example, take into account various constraints on the mobile robot's printing capabilities and ability to traverse a jobsite due to its own capabilities and any obstacles at the jobsite, see paragraph 0042, and in paragraph 0105, i.e., the mobile printing robot has constraints on its printing capabilities. Some of these constraints arise on the arrangement of its print heads, see paragraph 0105) of the robotic printing system, and combines items that the robotic printing system is capable of printing in fewer print operations than the number of items, based on the relative position and orientation of the items as well as the physical constraints of the robotic printing system (see paragraphs [0147] and [0148], i.e., the optimization may combine two lines that can be printed more efficiently in one smooth motion. For example, two lines may be continuous and thus be more efficiently printed by combining them (e.g., a line from A to B and a line from B to C). As another example, two lines may overlap, such the may be more efficiently printed as one combined line, see paragraph 0147 and in paragraph 0148, i.e., multiple objects that fit within the width of one print swath (the width of the active printing area of the head, may be combined together and printed as one image. For example, if the robot has a print head that can print 1 inch wide, two parallel lines that are 5/8 inch wide representing either side of a drywall layer, can be printed simultaneously. In this case the two lines are combined together and printed in a single pass, or line, see paragraph 0148); and
submit the results of the algorithm as a new set of instructions to the robotic printing system (see paragraph [0130], i.e., the user interface device optimizes the lines before submitting them to the robot).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the closest prior art of record, namely, Herget et al. discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, providing a set of selectable value parameters that indicate how aggressively to omit content with each annotation, as recited in dependent claim 5.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the closest prior art of record, namely, Herget et al. discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, input parameters to the algorithm that configure which annotations the algorithm shall introduce into the set of items to print and how aggressively the algorithm shall omit content with each annotation, such that portions of the set of items may then be omitted, as claimed in dependent claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 8-10, traversal of restriction requirement that Group 1 claims 1-7 and claim 8-16 substantial overlap and therefore examination of claims 1-7 and 8-16 is requested have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Group I, claims 1-7 are drawn to a method of combining items to print, classified in USPC 358/1.15. The system of claim 7 is included in the grouping of claim 1, as it is merely a system controller directed to the functions of the method of claim 1.
Group II, claims 8-16 are drawn to a method of printing layout classified in USPC 347/2.
Group III, claim 17 is drawn to a method inclusive of receiving and merging sets of shapes to be printed classified in USPC 382/276.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive as the process of I does not rely on any featured steps of the process of II, and vice versa. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive as the process of I does not rely on any featured steps of the process of III, and vice versa. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive as the process of II does not rely on any featured steps of the process of III, and vice versa. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Because each method includes distinct steps with distinct outcomes, the inventions have acquired separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter and/or the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, did not submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herget et al. (US 2024/0361780 A1) teaches a mobile printing robot prints layouts or other construction information on a construction surface. A line printing pathway optimization method performs at least one optimization of a listing of lines to be printed. In some examples, the line printing pathway optimization includes at least one of line sorting, line orientation, line cropping, and line splitting (see the abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOV POPOVICI whose telephone number is (571)272-4083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOV POPOVICI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681